5 ms·

I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in ca

I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in case the result would invalidate the practice of EULAs altogether. Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging. Would be lovely to provide or deny consent for each of those actions detailed in the EULA -- the EULA becomes configuration.

kwhitefoot 4y ago
> EULAs have not really been tested in court In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  On consumer relations that is very clear. Any rule that isn't on the marketing material does not exist. But on business relations, things are way more complex. I wouldn't be surprised if some rules were perfectly enforceable.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    It's not part of the contract of sale if it is not possible to read it before agreeing to buy. You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale. I suppose I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and that the US situation might be very different. The OP should consult a lawyer or return the camera for a refund if he feels unsure about the meaning of the agreement.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      > You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale. Yes, but B2B sales come on all kinds of shapes. On some cases there is clear not an agreement on the EULA terms, but I'm not sure that is a universal rule.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Meanwhile in the USA, we prioritize corporate profits over consumers. "Caveat emptor" is the motto. It's your own fault for not doing research!
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  The rule is the same in the USA. Which in practice doesn't matter much.
- tpxl 4y ago
  I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money they earn I'd imagine they would.
  - throwaway821909 4y ago
    From https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/ https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/ Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy GeForce products. To help with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a “Lite Hash Rate,” or “LHR,” identifier. The identifier will be in retail product listings and on the box. This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already purchased.
    - tpxl 4y ago
      Weren't some old (1xxx and 2xxx series) cards also reduced and promptly 'hacked' a few days later?
- hvdijk 4y ago
  They may be enforceable even in Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is explained at <https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-van-software-eulas/ https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...>; in short, for general terms and conditions that apply to everyone, you merely need to have been suitably informed beforehand and the terms cannot be unreasonably burdensome. In Belgium, a judge ruled in October last year that an EULA cannot prohibit decompilation of software, <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=247056&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6413406 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...>, a ruling that rather directly implies that EULAs are valid in general in Belgium, it is only specific clauses in EULAs that may be deemed invalid. I do not know where this idea that EULAs are invalid throughout the EU comes from. It is simply not true.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
redwall_hp 4y ago
I vaguely remember computer magazines in the early 2000s talking about that: some lawyers suggested that EULAs were of questionable enforcability because they were negotiated solely by one party with legal resources and signed by one party without. The general status quo seems to have been "make threats and settle out of court" ever since, avoiding any sort of legal precedent being set. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm unaware of a high profile case where such a thing happened, but as far as I'm aware EULAs are very similar to the state of DMCA takedowns: widely used as a cudgel against the little guy, since most people don't have the resources to fight it out in court, and in the rare cases of resistance they go for an out of court settlement.
- xtracto 4y ago
  I'm not from the USA, but why hasn't someone actively gone through the law system to take EULAs to their final consequences (hopefully being dismissed by a court as one for a). I understand that companies would try to settle out of court, but why hasn't someone setup a company that doesnt settle just for the sake of establishing precedent?

kwhitefoot 4y ago

> EULAs have not really been tested in court In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.

marcosdumay 4y ago
On consumer relations that is very clear. Any rule that isn't on the marketing material does not exist. But on business relations, things are way more complex. I wouldn't be surprised if some rules were perfectly enforceable.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  It's not part of the contract of sale if it is not possible to read it before agreeing to buy. You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale. I suppose I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and that the US situation might be very different. The OP should consult a lawyer or return the camera for a refund if he feels unsure about the meaning of the agreement.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    > You can't impose extra conditions on the buyer after the sale. Yes, but B2B sales come on all kinds of shapes. On some cases there is clear not an agreement on the EULA terms, but I'm not sure that is a universal rule.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
Meanwhile in the USA, we prioritize corporate profits over consumers. "Caveat emptor" is the motto. It's your own fault for not doing research!
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
The rule is the same in the USA. Which in practice doesn't matter much.
tpxl 4y ago
I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money they earn I'd imagine they would.
- throwaway821909 4y ago
  From https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/ https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/ Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy GeForce products. To help with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a “Lite Hash Rate,” or “LHR,” identifier. The identifier will be in retail product listings and on the box. This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already purchased.
  - tpxl 4y ago
    Weren't some old (1xxx and 2xxx series) cards also reduced and promptly 'hacked' a few days later?
hvdijk 4y ago
They may be enforceable even in Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is explained at <https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-van-software-eulas/ https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...>; in short, for general terms and conditions that apply to everyone, you merely need to have been suitably informed beforehand and the terms cannot be unreasonably burdensome. In Belgium, a judge ruled in October last year that an EULA cannot prohibit decompilation of software, <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=247056&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6413406 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...>, a ruling that rather directly implies that EULAs are valid in general in Belgium, it is only specific clauses in EULAs that may be deemed invalid. I do not know where this idea that EULAs are invalid throughout the EU comes from. It is simply not true.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

redwall_hp 4y ago

I vaguely remember computer magazines in the early 2000s talking about that: some lawyers suggested that EULAs were of questionable enforcability because they were negotiated solely by one party with legal resources and signed by one party without. The general status quo seems to have been "make threats and settle out of court" ever since, avoiding any sort of legal precedent being set. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm unaware of a high profile case where such a thing happened, but as far as I'm aware EULAs are very similar to the state of DMCA takedowns: widely used as a cudgel against the little guy, since most people don't have the resources to fight it out in court, and in the rare cases of resistance they go for an out of court settlement.

xtracto 4y ago
I'm not from the USA, but why hasn't someone actively gone through the law system to take EULAs to their final consequences (hopefully being dismissed by a court as one for a). I understand that companies would try to settle out of court, but why hasn't someone setup a company that doesnt settle just for the sake of establishing precedent?